↓ Skip to main content

Phase II, randomized, placebo-controlled study of dovitinib in combination with fulvestrant in postmenopausal patients with HR+, HER2− breast cancer that had progressed during or after prior…

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Phase II, randomized, placebo-controlled study of dovitinib in combination with fulvestrant in postmenopausal patients with HR+, HER2− breast cancer that had progressed during or after prior endocrine therapy
Published in
Breast Cancer Research, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13058-017-0807-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonino Musolino, Mario Campone, Patrick Neven, Neelima Denduluri, Carlos H. Barrios, Javier Cortes, Kimberly Blackwell, Hatem Soliman, Zsuzsanna Kahan, Hervé Bonnefoi, Matthew Squires, Yong Zhang, Stephanie Deudon, Michael M. Shi, Fabrice André

Abstract

Overexpression of fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1), found in ≤8% of hormone receptor-positive (HR(+)), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2(-)) breast cancer cases, is correlated with decreased overall survival and resistance to endocrine therapy (ET). Dovitinib, a potent FGFR inhibitor, has demonstrated antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with FGFR pathway-amplified breast cancer. In this randomized, placebo-controlled phase II trial, we evaluated whether the addition of dovitinib to fulvestrant would improve outcomes in postmenopausal patients with HR(+), HER2(-) advanced breast cancer that had progressed during or after prior ET. Patients were stratified by FGF pathway amplification and presence of visceral disease, and they were randomized 1:1 to receive fulvestrant plus dovitinib or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). From 15 May 2012 to 26 November 2014, 97 patients from 36 centers were enrolled. The frequency of FGF pathway amplification was lower than anticipated, and the study was terminated early owing to slow accrual of patients with FGF pathway amplification. The median PFS (95% CI) was 5.5 (3.8-14.0) months vs 5.5 (3.5-10.7) months in the dovitinib vs placebo arms, respectively (HR, 0.68; did not meet predefined efficacy criteria). For the FGF pathway-amplified subgroup (n = 31), the median PFS (95% CI) was 10.9 (3.5-16.5) months vs 5.5 (3.5-16.4) months in the dovitinib vs placebo arms, respectively (HR, 0.64; met the predefined superiority criteria). Frequently reported adverse events in the dovitinib (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, asthenia, and headache) and placebo (diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and asthenia) arms were mostly low grade. The safety profile of dovitinib plus fulvestrant was consistent with the known safety profile of single-agent dovitinib. Dovitinib in combination with fulvestrant showed promising clinical activity in the FGF pathway-amplified subgroup. However, the data reported herein should be interpreted with caution, given that fewer PFS events occurred in the FGF pathway-amplified patients than was expected and that an effect of dovitinib regardless of FGR pathway amplification status cannot be excluded, because the population was smaller than expected. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01528345 . Registered 31 January 2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Other 10 8%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 42 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 50 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 February 2022.
All research outputs
#6,375,394
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research
#729
of 2,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,283
of 427,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research
#11
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 427,435 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.